This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63585239

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Grenfell Tower fire: Firms slammed for blaming each other Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Merry-go-round of blame still turns, says barrister
(about 2 hours later)
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry started in September 2017The Grenfell Tower Inquiry started in September 2017
The public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire has drawn to a close with a strongly worded attack by a senior barrister on companies and organisations involved in the tragedy. Several firms involved with Grenfell Tower are still engaging in a "merry-go-round of buck-passing" following the fire that killed 72 people, a long-running public inquiry has heard as it drew to a close.
Richard Millett KC, lead counsel for the inquiry, said the risks that led to the 2017 fire in west London were "well known" by many of them and "ought to have been known" by all of them. Richard Millett KC, lead counsel for the inquiry, said the risks that led to the June 2017 fire in west London were "well known" by many of the organisations and "ought to have been known" by all of them.
He described "incompetence", "cynical" and "possibly dishonest practices" in the building industry, "weak" building controls, failure of London Fire Brigade to learn lessons from previous fires, and a failure of government.He described "incompetence", "cynical" and "possibly dishonest practices" in the building industry, "weak" building controls, failure of London Fire Brigade to learn lessons from previous fires, and a failure of government.
He told the hearing that, based on the evidence, the panel should conclude that all 72 deaths as a result of the disaster in north Kensington were "avoidable".
Mr Millet KC condemned the "failure to pay due respect to the idea of the home as a physical aspect of human privacy, agency, safety and dignity".
'Nobody to blame?'
Addressing inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick, he said firms involved in the fire had often denied responsibility.
"If everything that has been said [at the inquiry] was correct, then nobody was to blame for the Grenfell Tower fire. Can that really be right?
"Is the answer that you want to give to the survivors, to the grieving families, and to the wider public to be that the Grenfell Tower fire was just a terrible accident? Just one of those unfortunate incidents that happened occasionally?"
Or is it to be, he said, that "there are so many to blame, that no one individual or organisation shoulders very much blame".
That, he said, is what the firms accused of some responsibility for the fire wanted him to conclude.
"Are they really as sorry as they say?" Mr Millet KC asked.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the inquiry chair, and his panel will now decide who is to blame for the fire
Since the first day of the first phase of the inquiry, Mr Millett KC has criticised the building industry companies for blaming each other in "indulging in a merry-go-round of blame".Since the first day of the first phase of the inquiry, Mr Millett KC has criticised the building industry companies for blaming each other in "indulging in a merry-go-round of blame".
Referring to the companies' closing statements this week he said "the merry-go-round turns still. The notes of its melody, clearly audible." Referring to the companies' closing statements this week, he said: "On day 312 of this inquiry, the merry-go-round still turns. The notes of its melody, clearly audible." he said.
'Candour not cleverness'
"A tragedy of these dimensions ought to have provoked a strong sense of public responsibility," Mr Millett KC continued.
Instead, many "core participants appear simply to have used the inquiry as an opportunity to position themselves", so as "to minimise their own exposure to legal liability", he said.
"A public inquiry is not the place for cleverness. But for candour."
Victims and bereaved relatives have campaigned for companies involved in the fire to be held accountable
He told the hearing that, based on the evidence, the panel should conclude "with confidence" that all 72 deaths as a result of the disaster in north Kensington were "avoidable".
Mr Millett KC's closing statements followed closing submissions all week by those involved in the refurbishment of the tower in 2015, such as the cladding manufacturer and insulation contractors.
The inquiry has previously heard how the tower's Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding enabled the flames on outside of the tower to spread quickly.
"If everything that has been said is correct, then nobody was to blame for the Grenfell Tower fire," he said. "Can that really be right?
What happened at Grenfell Tower?What happened at Grenfell Tower?
Grenfell council sorry for failings - inquiry Grenfeltural Productsl council sorry for failings - inquiry
Grenfell cladding firm tells inquiry product misusedGrenfell cladding firm tells inquiry product misused
He went on to say: "A tragedy of these dimensions ought to have provoked a strong sense of public responsibility." "Is the answer that you want to give to the survivors, to the grieving families, and to the wider public to be that the Grenfell Tower fire was just a terrible accident? Just one of those unfortunate incidents that happened occasionally?"
Instead, he said, many "core participants appear simply to have used the inquiry as an opportunity to position themselves", so as "to minimise their own exposure to legal liability". He continued to suggest to the hearing that the parties involved in the fire hoped that so many people were partially to blame that none of them should be held responsible.
"A public inquiry is not the place for cleverness. But for candour." "Are they really as sorry as they say?", he asked.
Richard Millett KC showed the inquiry a diagram of the "web of blame" he said had been woven by firms involved in the fire Mr Millet KC also condemned the "failure to pay due respect to the idea of the home as a physical aspect of human privacy, agency, safety and dignity".
He used the majority of his closing speech to set out the ways in which he believed the many organisations and companies, which were involved in the refurbishment of the tower in the years before the fire, had blamed each other. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the inquiry chair, and his panel will now decide who is to blame for the fire
Having heard the last of the closing statements, the inquiry panel will now decide which of them were most responsible for failures that led to the blaze. He used the majority of his closing speech to set out the ways in which he believed the many organisations and companies involved in the refurbishment had blamed each other.
Among them are:Among them are:
Arconic Architectural Products: The inquiry has heard the cladding manufacturer marketed the cladding, knowing it would be used on tall buildings, despite having test evidence that it might be unsafe for this purpose. Arconic, however, argues that it is the job of architects and construction firms to ensure the materials they use are suitable Arconic Architectural Products: The inquiry has heard the cladding manufacturer marketed the cladding knowing it would be used on tall buildings, despite having test evidence that it might be unsafe for this purpose. Arconic, however, argues that it is the job of architects and construction firms to ensure the materials they use are suitable
Rydon: The panel heard the building and design contractor for the tower's refurbishment in 2015 knew, or should have known, the cladding was flammable. Rydon says it was never warned about the risk of the cladding by its manufacturer and relied on other expertsRydon: The panel heard the building and design contractor for the tower's refurbishment in 2015 knew, or should have known, the cladding was flammable. Rydon says it was never warned about the risk of the cladding by its manufacturer and relied on other experts
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and its tenant management organisation: The local council and the body managing its social housing has been accused during the inquiry of trying to cut costs by using a cheaper, non-fire retardant type of cladding. The council has admitted its building inspectors signed-off on the decision The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and its tenant management organisation: The local council and the body managing its social housing have been accused during the inquiry of trying to cut costs by using a cheaper, non-fire retardant type of cladding. The council has admitted its building inspectors signed-off on the decision
Harley Facades: The contractor that bought and fitted the flammable cladding chosen by Rydon and the council has defended itself at the inquiry, saying it did not know the cladding had previously failed fire safety tests. However, Arconic argued the cladding came with a certificate that said it was combustible and that the cladding panels had been misused as they were not suitable for the towerHarley Facades: The contractor that bought and fitted the flammable cladding chosen by Rydon and the council has defended itself at the inquiry, saying it did not know the cladding had previously failed fire safety tests. However, Arconic argued the cladding came with a certificate that said it was combustible and that the cladding panels had been misused as they were not suitable for the tower
Celotex and Kingspan: During the inquiry the two insulation companies have been accused of ignoring safety risks when selling products for residential tower blocks. They insist their products could be used safely with the right designsCelotex and Kingspan: During the inquiry the two insulation companies have been accused of ignoring safety risks when selling products for residential tower blocks. They insist their products could be used safely with the right designs
Exova: The inquiry has heard that fire safety consultants had advised the refurbishment would have no adverse effect on safety in a report during the early planning stages for the Grenfell redevelopment. However, in his closing statement on Thursday, Sean Brannigan KC, representing the firm, said his client had "literally nothing to do" with the decision to use cladding containing a flammable plastic layer, which was taken later in the project Exova: The inquiry has heard that the fire safety consultants had advised the refurbishment would have no adverse effect on safety in a report during its early planning stages. However, in his closing statement earlier, Sean Brannigan KC, for the firm, said his client had "literally nothing to do" with the use of cladding containing a flammable plastic layer, a decision which was taken later in the project
On the inquiry's closing day, the government repeated its previous apology for its failure to realise that the regulatory system for building safety was "broken and might lead to a catastrophe such as this". On the inquiry's closing day, the government also repeated its previous apology for its failure to realise that the regulatory system for building safety was "broken and might lead to a catastrophe such as this".
Jason Beer KC, representing the Department for Housing, Communities and Levelling Up, said: "The department is truly sorry and apologises unreservedly."Jason Beer KC, representing the Department for Housing, Communities and Levelling Up, said: "The department is truly sorry and apologises unreservedly."
Victims and bereaved relatives have campaigned for companies involved in the fire to be held accountable Richard Millett KC showed the inquiry a diagram of the "web of blame" he said had been woven by firms involved in the fire
It is likely the inquiry will not publish its final report until well into 2023, and that decisions by police and prosecutors about whether criminal charges will be brought will not be made until 2024. Four years after the inquiry started, chair Sir Martin Moor-Bick and the panel will now decide who was to blame.
They are expected to report back in 2023. Criminal proceedings by the Met Police may follow, but this is unlikely to happen before 2024.
Bereaved relatives and survivors of the fire, along with residents of the estate where Grenfell Tower stands, have said they will not be satisfied until those responsible are sent to prison.Bereaved relatives and survivors of the fire, along with residents of the estate where Grenfell Tower stands, have said they will not be satisfied until those responsible are sent to prison.
Additional reporting by Aurelia FosterAdditional reporting by Aurelia Foster
Follow BBC London on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hellobbclondon@bbc.co.ukFollow BBC London on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hellobbclondon@bbc.co.uk